State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Kamal Kishore & Ors

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

State has preferred this appeal against judgment dated 24.02.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No.02 of 2013 titled 'State of H.P. vs. Kamal Kishore & Ors.' arising out of FIR No.118 dated 17.08.2012, registered at Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, under Sections 366, 376, 495 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). Vide the impugned judgment, respondents have been acquitted of respective charges framed against them under Sections 376, 417, 493, 494, 495 and 120B of IPC.

Prosecution's case is that on 17.08.2012, victim-Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) approached Police Station Barsar along with a written application (Exhibit PW-1/A), alleging therein that accused persons had hatched a conspiracy and solemnized her marriage with respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore, who was already married, on 10.07.2012, in a hotel at Shimla and thereafter brought her back to Village Samoh, District Hamirpur, whereas she had not seen village Lahorli Kalwal, where respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore had been residing with his uncle (Fufa) and aunty (Bua).

It was further alleged that respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore used to visit her in Village Samoh in the house of respondent No.2-Meena Kumari and had sexual intercourse with her whenever he visited there. According to the complainant, her marriage was solemnized by concealing the fact that respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore had already married Shalini Devi (PW-2) in the year 2004, and this fact came in her knowledge on 16.08.2012, when her mother called upon members of Mahila Mandal, whereupon she realized that injustice had been done to her.

PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti, in her complaint, named Meena Kumari, Sarita Devi, Kamal Kishore, Promila Devi and Harbanshi Devi, as well as Mahinder and his wife, as persons who were present at the time of solemnization of her marriage with Kamal Kishore, and further alleged that a photo album was also prepared during the marriage ceremony.

The aforesaid written application (Exhibit PW-1/A), apart from complainant-Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1), was also signed by Kamla Devi (PW-5), Pradhan, Mahila Mandal, Kanchan Devi, Ward Panch, Samoh, as well as Sandesh Kumari and Lata Devi.

On the basis of written application (Exhibit PW-1/A), on 17.08.2012 FIR (Exhibit PW-15/A) was registered at Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur.

Investigation was carried out and, after finding sufficient material to prosecute the respondents, challan was presented before the Court under Sections 376, 417, 493, 495 and 120B IPC against respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and under Sections 417, 495 and 120B IPC against remaining respondents, namely, Meena Kumari, Jagdev Singh, Sarita Devi, Promila Devi and Harbanshi Devi.

After committal by the Magistrate to the Sessions Judge, finding a, prima facie, case of commission of offence under Section 376, 493, 494, 495 and 417 read with Section 120B of IPC by the respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and under Section 417 read with Section 120B by remaining respondents/accused, charges were framed against them accordingly. On pleading not guilty, respondents were subjected to trial.

To establish prosecution case, 18 witnesses were examined and thereafter statements of the respondents under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') were recorded. Four defence witnesses (DWs) were also examined by the respondents. Upon conclusion of the trial, by appreciation and assessment of the evidence on record, the respondents were acquitted.

To prove the factual matrix of the prosecution's case, PW- 1 Rinki @ Jyoti (complainant-victim), PW-2 Shalini Devi (wife of respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore), PW-4 Tirath Ram (Up Pradhan, Gram Sudhar Sabha) and PW-5 Kamla Devi (Pradhan, Mahila Mandal, Samoh) were examined.

PW-3 Dr. Anukriti Singh, after examining the victim upon her production by PW-10 Lady Constable Renu Sharma, had issued MLC and handed over the same along with relevant documents/samples to PW-10 LC Renu Sharma.

PW-8 Dr. Ajay Kumar, after examining accused-respondent No.1 upon his production by PW-13 Constable Gani Khan had issued MLC and handed over the same with all relevant documents/samples to PW-13 Constable Gani Khan.

PW-14 HC Ravi Kumar was working as MHC at the relevant time, with whom parcels and samples, received from PW-10 LC Renu Sharma and PW-13 Constable Gani Khan, were preserved in Malkhana, and thereafter the sealed parcel was sent to RFSL Gutkar, District Mandi.

PW-11 Constable Tarun Verma brought the report dated 20.09.2012 (Exhibit PX) from RFSL.

PW-7 Lalit Kishore Sharma, In-charge at Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, Totu, was examined to prove booking of accommodation/hall for solemnization of marriage between complainant-Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) and respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore in Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, Totu, Shimla, on 10.07.2012.

PW-17 Basu Dev Sharma was examined as Pandit of Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Totu, who solemnized the marriage between Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) and Kamal Kishore in the said Temple on 10.07.2012.

PW-6 Yashpal Singh, Panchayat Secretary, was examined to prove copies of the Parivar Register of Arjun Singh (Exhibit PW-6/B), birth certificate of the daughter of Kamal Kishore & Shalini Devi (Exhibit PW-6/C) and marriage certificate of Kamal Kishore & Shalini Devi (Exhibit PW-6/D), taken in possession by Investigating Officer from him vide seizure memo (Exhibit PW-6/E).

PW-9 Constable Anil Kumar had witnessed the production of photographs pertaining to marriage of Kamal Kishore with the prosecutrix, which were taken into possession by Investigating Officer from respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore vide seizure memo (Exhibit PW-9/A).

PW-12 Sharda Devi, Panchayat Secretary, Tikkar Rajputan, Barsar, was examined to prove production of copy of the Parivar Register (Exhibit PW-12/B), as per the Panchayat record, pursuant to application (Exhibit PW-12/A) submitted by I.O.

PW-15 ASI Jogender Pal and PW-18 S.I. Rajinder Singh are Investigating Officers in present case.

PW-15 ASI Joginder Pal had registered the FIR on the basis of written application (Exhibit PW-15/A) and had sent the victim for medical examination to CHC Barsar along with PW-10 LC Renu Sharma. Thereafter, he had recorded statements of Urmila Devi (mother of the complainant), Kamla Devi (Pradhan, Mahila Mandal, Samoh), Sandesh Kumari (Ward Member) and Tirath Ram (Up Pradhan, Gram Sudhar Sabha, Samoh). He had arrested Kamal Kishore, Meena Kumari and Jagdev Singh on 17.08.2012. He had also prepared the spot map (Exhibit PW-15/B) and recorded the statement of Jagar Nath, Pradhan, Gram Sudhar Sabha, Samoh. He had also recorded statements of PW-11 C. Tarun Sharma/Verma and PW-13 C. Gani Khan and thereafter handed over the investigation to PW-18 SI Rajinder Singh.

PW-16 Anant Ram, SHO, Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, on receiving the case file after investigation, had prepared the Challan and presented it before the Court of JMIC, Barsar, District Hamirpur.

In present matter, prosecution case is that till 16.08.2012, victim was not aware of former marriage of respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and all respondents, including Kamal Kishore, had kept her in dark and got her married to Kamal Kishore, who was already married. Therefore, she filed a complaint at Police Station Barsar.

It is further case of the prosecution that till her mother called her to her house, victim was not aware of the previous marriage of respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and, in this manner, all the respondents had committed fraud upon her and, on the basis of misrepresentation, she got married to Kamal Kishore.

As per PW-3 Dr. Anukriti Singh, who examined the victim on 17.08.2012, she sent three slides of vaginal smear for chemical analysis. After examination and upon receipt of the RFSL report, her final opinion was that sexual intercourse had occurred, but nothing suggestive of forceful sexual intercourse was noticed. In her examination-in-chief, she noticed that the hymen was broken. In cross-examination, this witness stated that the hymen rupture was old and healed, which normally gets healed within one week of its rupture, and that the possibility could not be ruled out that rupture of the hymen was more than six months old. In the RFSL report, no blood or semen was found in the preserved samples.

Medical evidence in present case is of no help to the prosecution, keeping in view the events of the incident and nature of the allegations levelled.

The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the complaint filed by PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti and her deposition in the Court as well as depositions of witnesses PW-4 Tirath Ram and PW-5 Kamla Devi. PW-2 Shalini Devi was also examined to prove former marriage of respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore.

PW-6 Yashpal has proved on record the Parivar Register of family of Kamal Kishore and birth certificate of daughter of Kamal Kishore & PW-2 Shalini Devi. PW-12 Sharda Devi has produced the Parivar Register of Urmila Devi, mother of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti.

For proving the charges against the respondents with regard to concealment of the former marriage of respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and conspiracy to get PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti married to respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore, the first ingredient required to be proved was the valid marriage of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti with respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and concealment of the former marriage of respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore. In this regard, the statement of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti in the written complaint (Exhibit PW-1/A), her deposition before the Court and her response in cross-examination are most relevant. No other relevant witness was examined by the prosecution in this regard, as Urmila Devi, mother of PW-1, despite being cited as a witness in the challan, was given up on the ground that her evidence was repetitive in nature.

Mother of PW-1, Urmila Devi was the only material witness with regard to the claim of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti that information regarding her marriage with respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore was withheld from Urmila Devi.

It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.2-Meena Kumari refrained PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti from disclosing her proposed marriage with respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore, even after solemnization of the marriage and, as such, PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti did not disclose her marriage to her mother. Consequently, Urmila Devi (mother of PW-1) remained unaware of the marriage of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti with respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and came to know about the same only on 16.08.2012, when PW-4 Tirath Ram (Up Pradhan, Gram Sudhar Sabha) informed her about the solemnization of marriage after receiving such information in Bani Market, where 5 to 7 persons were talking about the marriage. Since Urmila Devi was not examined as a witness, only the statement of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti is available for evaluating the veracity of the prosecution case in this regard.

It is the case of the prosecution that PW-4 Tirath Ram was present in Bani Bazar on 15.08.2012, where he came to know that respondent No.2-Meena Kumari had solemnized the marriage of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti with respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore, who was already married and had children. On 16.08.2012, he went to village Samoh and inquired from Urmila Devi, mother of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti, about the marriage of her daughter with Kamal Kishore, but Urmila Devi was found completely unaware of the said fact. Thereupon, PW-4 Tirath Ram disclosed the factum of marriage to her, whereafter, on the very same day, Urmila Devi reported the matter to the Mahila Mandal and Gram Sudhar Sabha, Samoh.

Thereafter, a meeting was convened in the presence of Jagar Nath (Pradhan, Gram Sudhar Sabha, Samoh), Kamla Devi (Pradhan, Mahila Mandal, Samoh) and Sudesh Kumari and others. PW-4 Tirath Ram, who was Up Pradhan of Gram Sudhar Sabha, stated that respondent No.2-Meena Kumari and PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti were called in the meeting. However, Meena Kumari did not appear, whereas PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti appeared and expressed her ignorance about the former marriage of respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and further stated that after the marriage, she had never visited the matrimonial home.

House of Urmila Devi was situated at a distance of about 200 metres from the house of PW-4 Tirath Ram. He admitted that the father and paternal uncle of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti were drivers and he (PW-4) was partner of father of accused-Kamal Kishore and they were having cordial relations.

PW-5 Kamla Devi (Pradhan, Mahila Mandal, Samoh) deposed that on 16.08.2012, a meeting of Mahila Mandal and Gram Sudhar Sabha, Samoh was called by Urmila Devi, where she complained that her daughter had been married by respondent No.2-Meena Kumari to respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore, who was already married. She further deposed that Rinki @ Jyoti was called in the meeting, where she admitted her marriage with Kamal Kishore and expressed her ignorance about the previous marriage of Kamal Kishore. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police on 17.08.2012.

PW-5 Kamla Devi (Pradhan, Mahila Mandal, Samoh) further stated that she was not aware of the marriage of Rinki @ Jyoti with Kamal Kishore and this fact was disclosed to her by Urmila Devi on 16.08.2012. She admitted that Rinki @ Jyoti was pursuing ITI course at Bani and that her house was situated at a distance of 200 metres from the house of Urmila Devi, but stated that Rinki @ Jyoti never met her.

Statements of PW-4 Tirath Ram and PW-5 Kamla Devi are based on hearsay information. Therefore, the case of the prosecution mainly depends upon the veracity of the statement of PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti. In her deposition before the Court, PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti stated that her father had died in the month of March, 2012, who was suffering from serious ailment and, on account of financial hardship faced by the family, she could not continue her studies after 10+2; on request of Meena Kumari, who was resident of the same village, her parents had permitted her to work in the house of Meena Kumari, who had also assured to continue her studies by bearing the expenses thereof. She further stated that she was admitted in ITI at Bani by Meena Kumari and that she used to attend classes and also to work in the house of Meena Kumari.

PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti further deposed that in the year 2012, Harbanshi Devi, Kamal Kishore and Promila Devi came to Meena Kumari and proposed marriage of Kamal Kishore with her, and accordingly, PW-1, Meena Kumari informed her about the proposal, but advised her (PW-1) not to disclose the same to her mother. She further deposed that she had inquired from accused-Kamal Kishore about his willingness for marriage, whereupon he had replied that he had no affair with anyone and was willing to marry her.

PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti further stated that on 01.07.2012, Harbanshi Devi came to Meena Kumari and fixed the date of marriage as 10.07.2012. According to PW-1, on 09.07.2012, Kamal Kishore sent a vehicle in which she, along with Meena Kumari, Jagdev Singh and Sarita Devi, went towards Bijhar, where Kamal Kishore, Harbanshi Devi and Promila Devi met them, who took them to Shimla. She further stated that they stayed during the night at Totu in the Sarai of Lakshmi Narayan Mandir and that on 10.07.2012, her marriage with Kamal Kishore was solemnized in Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, Totu, according to Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, they visited Tara Devi Temple, Shimla, and returned back to Samoh. During return journey, Kamal Kishore, Harbanshi Devi and Promila Devi got down at village Lahorli and PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti returned to village Samoh along with accused Meena Kumari, Jagdev Singh and Sarita Devi.

PW-1 further deposed that on 13.07.2012, Kamal Kishore came to village Samoh and took her to Kullu, where they stayed in a hotel and during night Kamal Kishore established sexual relations with her. On the next day, they went to Manikaran and returned to village Samoh in the night of 14.07.2012, when Kamal Kishore again had sexual intercourse with her, and thereafter he went back on 15.07.2012. She further stated that later on, he used to visit her and have sexual intercourse with her. According to her, on 07.08.2012 also, he stayed during the night in the house of Meena Kumari and had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he neither came to village Samoh nor took her to village Lahorli, and she had never visited village Lahorli. According to PW-1, on 16.08.2012, she came to know through her mother that Kamal Kishore was already married and that he had married her without disclosing the said fact.

In the written complaint (Exhibit PW-1/A), a detailed narration of the incidents has been given, wherein it has been stated that her (Rinki @ Jyoti) marriage was solemnized at Shimla on 10.07.2012 in a 'hotel' and thereafter she was brought back to village Samoh by Meena Kumari, and that till the filing of the complaint, Rinki @ Jyoti had not visited village Lahorli.

In the complaint, complete address and parentage of PW-2 Shalini Devi, wife of Kamal Kishore, have also been mentioned. It has further been stated therein that, apart from the respondents, Mahinder and his wife were also present at the time of the marriage. Whereas, in her deposition before the Court, PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti gave a different version by stating that her marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and customs in Lakshmi Narayan Mandir at Totu and thereafter they also visited Tara Devi Temple.

There is a considerable difference between a hotel and a temple. Solemnization of marriage according to Hindu rites and customs in Lakshmi Narayan Mandir is not a minor event, and thus, it could not have been omitted in a detailed complaint by merely stating that the marriage was solemnized in a hotel at Shimla. The omission to mention that after the marriage they visited Tara Devi Temple may be natural, but the place of marriage, manner of solemnization of marriage and place of stay are not insignificant facts. It is beyond imagination that, instead of stating that the marriage was solemnized in a temple, the complainant stated that the marriage was solemnized in a hotel, without any reference to the temple in any manner.

It appears that during the investigation, in order to implicate the respondents by introducing evidence of marriage, a major improvement was made in the prosecution story.

From the statement of PW-7 Lalit Kishore Sharma, In-Charge of Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, it is evident that the hall of the temple was stated to have been booked in the name of Arjun Thakur, who was the uncle (Fufa) of Kamal Kishore. However, neither in the complaint nor in the deposition before the Court, the complainant ever named Arjun Thakur as a person present at the time of solemnization of her marriage.

PW-7 Lalit Kishore Sharma stated that it was Mahinder who had booked the hall in the name of Arjun Thakur and that the applications were also written by Mahinder, but Mahinder is not an accused in the present case. He was cited as a prosecution witness, but was also given up by the State and, thus, the major link to establish booking of the hall by or in favour of Arjun Thakur at the instance of the respondents or Arjun Thakur is missing.

PW-17 Basudev Sharma was examined as the Pujari of the temple and stated that on 10.07.2012, he had performed the marriage ceremony of Rinki @ Jyoti and Kamal Kishore according to Hindu rites and customs. However, he remained silent as to how and in what manner the marriage was solemnized. He also admitted that he had not issued any marriage certificate.

PW-17 further stated that the Temple Committee did not maintain any register regarding marriages performed there.

In absence of cogent evidence linking the respondents with the booking of the hall, the solemnization of marriage in the temple has not been proved by reliable and cogent evidence.

It is prosecution case that Kamal Kishore had produced photographs of the solemnization of marriage with Rinki @ Jyoti before the Investigating Officer, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo (Exhibit PW-9/A) in the presence of witnesses HHC Somraj and Constable Anil Kumar. HHC Somraj was not examined, whereas Constable Anil Kumar (PW-9) was examined.

In cross-examination, he (PW-9) initially stated that he did not know from where the accused had brought and produced the photographs and thereafter stated that the accused had brought the photographs from room. He further stated that at the time of production of the photographs, no local resident was present.

No independent witness was associated with regard to production of the photographs by Kamal Kishore. Even otherwise, these photographs have not been proved on record in accordance with law. Neither the person who snapped the photographs, nor the person who developed the photographs, nor the negatives thereof, were produced in evidence. Therefore, the photographs also do not constitute conclusive proof of solemnization of marriage between Kamal Kishore and Rinki @ Jyoti.

In the absence of proof of solemnization of marriage between Kamal Kishore and Rinki @ Jyoti, respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore cannot be held guilty for the offences under Sections 493, 494 and 495 IPC.

Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) is 21 years old adult lady, who in her cross-examination initially denied that she used to commute in the bus of Kamal Kishore and expressed her ignorance regarding the ownership of Kashyap Bus Service by Kamal Kishore. Later on, she admitted that it was correct that Kamal Kishore used to take her on his motorcycle to the college for examination prior to the marriage, though she self-stated that he had taken her only once. She also stated in her examination-in-chief that she had conversations with Kamal Kishore and had asked him about his willingness to marry her.

DW-1 Ms. Poonam Bala, a cousin of the complainant, was working as a Staff Nurse in Gujarat, but was residing in the same village. Earlier, they were residing in the same house. She stated that everyone in the village had knowledge about the marriage of Rinki @ Jyoti with accused-Kamal Kishore and that prior to the marriage, Kamal Kishore usually used to visit the house of the complainant. This witness further stated that she had knowledge of the previous marriage of Kamal Kishore from the relatives of his earlier wife, who were their neighbours, and she had also talked about this fact with the complainant. According to her, the complainant had replied that she knew Kamal Kishore and would solemnize marriage with him despite knowing the said fact.

DW-3 Surjeet Singh is a taxi driver, who deposed that the complainant used to accompany Kamal Kishore in his taxi while going to MIT Bani, and during that period, the daughter of Kamal Kishore also used to accompany them. In his cross-examination, he admitted having knowledge of the fact of previous marriage of Kamal Kishore with PW-2 Shalini Devi and their daughter born out of the wedlock. His testimony remained unimpeached in cross-examination.

PW-2 Shalini Devi was examined to prove the factum of her marriage with Kamal Kishore and birth of their daughter. She also deposed that she had come to know about the second marriage allegedly solemnized by Kamal Kishore with Rinki @ Jyoti, but her knowledge was only based upon what she had heard from other persons.

It is also apt to record that DW-2 Naresh Kumari, Junior Assistant, Tehsil Office, Dehra, was examined to prove copies of affidavits (Exhibits DW-2/A and DW-2/B), attested vide entries No.2363 and 2364 dated 10.12.2012, as per the affidavit attestation register produced by her. In her cross-examination, there was no suggestion that these affidavits had not been sworn by Rinki @ Jyoti (complainant) and Vinod Kumar. The only questions put to this witness were that she did not know Rinki @ Jyoti and Vinod Kumar personally and that these affidavits did not bear their photographs. However, execution and attestation of the affidavits were not disputed. In affidavit (Exhibit DW-2/A) dated 10.12.2012, Rinki @ Jyoti had deposed on oath that she was solemnizing her first marriage with Vinod Kumar, whereas copy of affidavit of Vinod Kumar admitting the said marriage is Exhibit DW-2/B.

It has also come on record that the house of Meena Kumari was situated at a distance of 50 metres from the parental home of the complainant. Houses of PW-4 Tirath Ram and PW-5 Kamla Devi were also located at a distance of about 200 metres from the house of Urmila Devi, mother of the complainant. All of them were residents of the same village and PW-5 Kamla Devi admitted that villagers used to meet each other frequently.

House of Meena Kumari, situated at a distance of 50 metres from the house of Urmila Devi, even if located on the opposite side, would, at the most, be at a distance of about 250 metres from the houses of PW-4 Tirath Ram and PW-5 Kamla Devi.

It is the case of Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) that after the marriage, she used to wear apparels like a newly wedded bride along with light make-up . In such circumstances, it appears unbelievable that the villagers of Samoh, including PW-4 Tirath Ram and PW-5 Kamla Devi, had no knowledge about the marriage. Therefore, either the statement of the complainant is false, or PW-4 and PW-5 are not speaking the truth, or all of them, in order to implicate the respondents in the case, are making statements accordingly so as to justify the claim of Rinki @ Jyoti that no one except Meena Kumari was aware about the marriage.

Though Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) claimed that Meena Kumari had asked her not to disclose her marriage to her mother, yet from her deposition in cross-examination, it has come on record that prior to the marriage, she used to visit her mother frequently. Marriage in the life of an Indian girl is not a small event, rather it changes everything in life, and withholding information regarding such an important event that too from her mother, despite meeting her frequently prior to the marriage and even thereafter, appears unbelievable. Even if it is presumed that she had not been visiting or residing in the house of her mother, still, when they were residing in the same vicinity at a distance of about 50 metres, it is beyond imagination to presume that her family, including her mother, was not aware about the same. Therefore, either no marriage had taken place or there is something else which has not brought on record.

Another possibility may also be that no marriage had taken place at all and there existed intimacy between Rinki @ Jyoti and Kamal Kishore on account of acquaintance developed during the period when Rinki @ Jyoti was attending ITI/MIT at Bani for pursuing her courses.

Statement of DW-1 Poonam also remained unimpeached and the facts narrated by her also creates doubt about truthfulness about the complainant's version.

It is apt to notice that after solemnization of marriage, if the marriage was at all solemnized, Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) neither insisted upon nor intended to go with Kamal Kishore to the matrimonial house, rather she opted to stay with Meena Kumari. She visited Kullu and Manikaran with Kamal Kishore, but did not visit her matrimonial home even for a single day, despite her claim that the marriage was solemnized at the request of Harbanshi Devi, wife of Arjun Thakur, with whom Kamal Kishore had been residing, as they had adopted him. Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) neither visited Loharili, the village of Harbanshi Devi, nor the paternal house of Kamal Kishore. This circumstance also creates doubt as to whether any marriage was ever solemnized or not.

From the above discussion, it is apparent that the veracity of the material witnesses is doubtful and there is no cogent, reliable and convincing evidence to establish the prosecution case. The respondents also have the benefit of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, which further fortifies the presumption of innocence in their favour. Learned Deputy Advocate General could not make out any ground warranting interference in the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Record be sent back. Bail and surety bonds furnished by or on behalf of respondent(s) are discharged.